Obama has done it again. Now its Immigration.

[Danno 1,228]

"Change we can believe in"

Obama reverses stance on immigration

Co-opts policy he once mocked

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/m...or-immigration/

On the thorniest of political issues, President Obama has embraced the enforcement-first position on immigration that he criticized during last year's presidential campaign, and he now says he can't move forward with the type of comprehensive bill he wants until voters are convinced that the borders can be enforced.

Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year, Mr. Obama boosted his commitment to enforcement in the budget released Thursday. The spending blueprint calls for extra money to build an employee-verification system and to pay for more personnel and equipment to patrol the border.

This security-first stance is not unlike that of President George W. Bush, Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who said their immigration bill failed in 2007 because voters didn't trust the government to be serious about enforcement.

"If the American people don't feel like you can secure the borders," Mr. Obama said at his press conference last week, "then it's hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, 'Well, you're just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year.' "

Republicans say the shift is a sign that Mr. Obama, who during the campaign repeatedly called the issue a priority, is uncertain how to move forward.

"I don't think Barack Obama understands the immigration issue. I don't know that he has spoken about it in any depth during his entire political career," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the top Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee that handles immigration. "I think he's finding his position, and I think that's why we're getting these moving positions."

Immigration questions dog Mr. Obama. He was asked about the issue at a town hall in California and has been prodded by Spanish-language reporters, to whom he has given plenty of access.

But so far, even as he puts off a target date for signing a comprehensive bill, he has kept the support of immigrant rights groups, who applaud his changes at the Department of Homeland Security and say he's still committed to their top priority - a bill that would legalize most illegal immigrants.

"Given all the givens - you can't look at any one priority in isolation - he's made a decent start," said Angela M. Kelley, who used to be director of the Immigration Policy Center and is now vice president for immigration issues at the Center for American Progress. But, she said, he will need to show some progress before the year is out.

"The president needs to help Congress steer this issue, so there has be a pretty clear road map that he's stating publicly about how he wants us to proceed, and then have the internal workings of the White House support what he says publicly," she said.

The 2007 bill was blocked in the Senate by a bipartisan filibuster, but Republicans provided most of the "no" votes and took most of the blame. Even with expanded Democratic majorities and a sense among immigrant-rights groups that voters' attitudes on the issue have shifted in their favor, Mr. Obama still will have to win Republican votes.

Mr. King said that math may be part of the reason why the president is now talking about enforcement.

"It looks to me that Obama has a clear instinct to lurch as hard to the left as possible, but I think he also recognizes now there are some real limitations to what you can do because you've still got to get 60 votes in the Senate," Mr. King said.

Last summer, as a candidate, Mr. Obama said stepped-up enforcement had to be coupled with rewriting immigration rules and giving both instant legal status and an eventual path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants who are willing to pay a fine and learn English.

He also told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials that comprehensive immigration - the term backers use for a bill that includes legalizing illegal immigrants - would be "a priority I will pursue from my very first day."

But last month, on Univision's "Al Punto" Sunday political talk show, host Jorge Ramos tried to pin down Mr. Obama on his campaign "guarantee" that "we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support."

"You are absolutely right, the economic crisis has meant that I have been putting a lot on Congress' plate," Mr. Obama told Mr. Ramos, according to Univision's transcript. "So what that's meant is that just in terms of the calendar, I can't guarantee that I will have a bill on my desk before the end of the year."

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked whether Americans have enough confidence in border security.

"It depends on who you ask and when," she said.

Those who want to see stricter limits on immigration say they have been amazed at how much leeway Mr. Obama is being given by immigrant rights groups who have been harshly critical of calls for enforcement first.

"I'm just surprised at how muted the reaction has been to Obama's complete lack of action on immigration," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who said immigrant rights groups are giving Mr. Obama "a lot more slack than they would have given a President McCain."

Earlier this year Mr. McCain told The Washington Times that immigrant rights supporters were mistaken if they thought Mr. Obama's promise to conduct meetings meant they will see a bill.

"I was fascinated the Hispanic Caucus came out all excited - 'Hey, he said we're going to have forums and meetings and conferences on it' - is there somebody that doesn't understand the issue of immigration? So if the president wants to lead and make a proposal on comprehensive immigration reform with the principle of securing our borders first, then I'm ready to join in. But the president has to lead," Mr. McCain said.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

great source...

"The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues. The Times has never been a financial success and has about one-eighth of the circulation of its major competitor in Washington, the Washington Post."

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

great source...

"The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues. The Times has never been a financial success and has about one-eighth of the circulation of its major competitor in Washington, the Washington Post."

from wiki, of course. but this tidbit is most interesting too

At the time of the Times' founding Washington had only one major newspaper, the Washington Post. The Post had been one of the leading critics of Moon's anti-communist political activism.

leave it to the post to criticize anti-communist activism.

link

[Nagishkaw 510]

they have been amazed at how much leeway Mr. Obama is being given by immigrant rights groups who have been harshly critical of calls for enforcement first.

It's called show me the money.

[NickD 203]

Immigration was an unknown issue to me until I met my wife from all places, a foreign country. Talks about rules and regulations, enough to cause one head to spin.

Yes, we have rules and regulations, more than you can shake a stick at, and that is all congress does is to make new laws. One of the first things in dating my wife I learned is that I could visit her forever in her country, but when she came here, really had to watch that I-94 expiration date. Was under some kind of strange impression, if she didn't leave before that day, the CIA, FBI, HS, and the boy scouts would be at my door escorting her out. But only to learn later on that millions come here with overstayed I-94's and not a damn thing is done about it.

We already have the rules, but what good are they if they are not enforced? Now states, in particular ours is putting the burden of responsibility on such places like the DMV and private employers, so what in the hell are we paying taxes for? Just like the hours I have to spend on my own time collecting money and giving it to the state. And if they find a one cent error can toss me in jail or fine me to death.

GWB came out and stated that illegals are doing jobs Americans do not want. But failed to mention that meat packing plants in our area that were under the strong guidance of OSHA and paying 18 bucks an hour with huge liabilities toward their employees, could now get by for under five bucks an hour. And if an illegal cut off his hand, was simply fired with no liability to the company. The same with corporation farms, hiring an entire family for a hundred bucks a week expected to work 24/7 and also protected by the state because each of the corporate farms are treated as a separate entity and go untouched if hiring less than 3 illegal employers. We have crooks running this country and a new form of slavery.

Since congress didn't do anything for enforcement, many of the states started enforcement, our governor appoints a campaign buddy that thinks a green card is green, what a go around I had with him! Wife's employer also has a strong legal department with no knowledge of immigration, and the only thing made clear to them is if they hire an illegal, can be fined 16,000 bucks. Nothing from the USCIS is written so clearly like that, especially with their crazy one year extension notice from a conditional residence.

One thing that really convinced me is that we have a government that doesn't know what the fuvk they are doing.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Jorge Bush Jr. had "enforcement-first" position on immigration?

Edited May 13, 2009 by CherryXS

[Danno 1,228]

great source...

"The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues. The Times has never been a financial success and has about one-eighth of the circulation of its major competitor in Washington, the Washington Post."

Oh Jeez, this "rubberstamp" reply is getting stale.

Liberals control the vast majority of news papers, because it's not 100% that discredits the few not in the fold?

It might be of more value to respond with a countering position or source rather than just dismiss a news story because you don't agree with it.

[nowhereman 1]

Once again Danno is trying to stir up controversy over essentially nothing (I'm shocked). If you look at Obama & McCain's respective stances on immigration (when they were running for President) they were very similar. They certainly differed on other issues, but on this one they were pretty much in agreement.

[Danno 1,228]

Once again Danno is trying to stir up controversy over essentially nothing (I'm shocked). If you look at Obama & McCain's respective stances on immigration (when they were running for President) they were very similar. They certainly differed on other issues, but on this one they were pretty much in agreement.

At a glance they might have looked the same.

In fact, McCain "revised" his position after he realized his amnesty plan wasn't fly with so many people, then he revised it to include "secure the border first".

Obama is just now getting there.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Once again Danno is trying to stir up controversy over essentially nothing (I'm shocked). If you look at Obama & McCain's respective stances on immigration (when they were running for President) they were very similar. They certainly differed on other issues, but on this one they were pretty much in agreement.

At a glance they might have looked the same.

In fact, McCain "revised" his position after he realized his amnesty plan wasn't fly with so many people, then he revised it to include "secure the border first".

Obama is just now getting there.

Obama's the President, McCain got his a$$ whupped in the election. I think that both of their immigration reform plans suck. ** the illegals, let them suffer. How about making it smoother for the people who follow the law instead of catering to those who flagrantly violate our laws. That is my idea of immigration reform.

[nowhereman 1]

Once again Danno is trying to stir up controversy over essentially nothing (I'm shocked). If you look at Obama & McCain's respective stances on immigration (when they were running for President) they were very similar. They certainly differed on other issues, but on this one they were pretty much in agreement.

At a glance they might have looked the same.

In fact, McCain "revised" his position after he realized his amnesty plan wasn't fly with so many people, then he revised it to include "secure the border first".

Obama is just now getting there.

Obama's the President, McCain got his a$$ whupped in the election. I think that both of their immigration reform plans suck. ** the illegals, let them suffer. How about making it smoother for the people who follow the law instead of catering to those who flagrantly violate our laws. That is my idea of immigration reform.

Securing the borders should be a priority, so whether McCain and/or Obama support this I'm fine with it. As for illegals the knee-jerk reaction is to say screw them & believe me I don't think they should get a free pass while honest people have to undergo what is a long & difficult process. If the illegals have come to the USA & have been a burden then yes kick them out. However if they have been a contributing member of society make them go through the process properly & fine the bejesus out of them for coming here illegally, but give them the chance to be a US citizen. Unless you are an American indian your ancestors came here as immigrants too, so don't forget that.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Once again Danno is trying to stir up controversy over essentially nothing (I'm shocked). If you look at Obama & McCain's respective stances on immigration (when they were running for President) they were very similar. They certainly differed on other issues, but on this one they were pretty much in agreement.

At a glance they might have looked the same.

In fact, McCain "revised" his position after he realized his amnesty plan wasn't fly with so many people, then he revised it to include "secure the border first".

Obama is just now getting there.

Obama's the President, McCain got his a$$ whupped in the election. I think that both of their immigration reform plans suck. ** the illegals, let them suffer. How about making it smoother for the people who follow the law instead of catering to those who flagrantly violate our laws. That is my idea of immigration reform.

Securing the borders should be a priority, so whether McCain and/or Obama support this I'm fine with it. As for illegals the knee-jerk reaction is to say screw them & believe me I don't think they should get a free pass while honest people have to undergo what is a long & difficult process. If the illegals have come to the USA & have been a burden then yes kick them out. However if they have been a contributing member of society make them go through the process properly & fine the bejesus out of them for coming here illegally, but give them the chance to be a US citizen. Unless you are an American indian your ancestors came here as immigrants too, so don't forget that.

And my ancestors came here in compliance with the laws that were in effect at the time. And remember that most on this board have a significant other that came here obeying the laws that are currently in place. Now people who flagerantly and openly violate our laws should be able to become citizens, and remain here while doing so while thousands of people who are doing it legally wait and deal with lengthy separations and endless red tape bs while waiting? Sorry, not in my book.

[jundp 191]

1. While I do not begrudge anyone wanting to come here for a better life, I don't agree with an across-the-board amnesty. I know it's not as easy as 'send them all home' because some people have no homes to go back to. However, after time, money, emotions, etc invested in the immigration process myself, I do have problems with people coming here illegally and being granted the right to stay whilst friends of mine wait for YEARS to legally bring their loved ones here.

2. The Washington Times, according to the teacher's edition of my mass media text, is not known for fair and balanced reporting. That's all it says.

[nowhereman 1]

Once again Danno is trying to stir up controversy over essentially nothing (I'm shocked). If you look at Obama & McCain's respective stances on immigration (when they were running for President) they were very similar. They certainly differed on other issues, but on this one they were pretty much in agreement.

At a glance they might have looked the same.

In fact, McCain "revised" his position after he realized his amnesty plan wasn't fly with so many people, then he revised it to include "secure the border first".

Obama is just now getting there.

Obama's the President, McCain got his a$$ whupped in the election. I think that both of their immigration reform plans suck. ** the illegals, let them suffer. How about making it smoother for the people who follow the law instead of catering to those who flagrantly violate our laws. That is my idea of immigration reform.

Securing the borders should be a priority, so whether McCain and/or Obama support this I'm fine with it. As for illegals the knee-jerk reaction is to say screw them & believe me I don't think they should get a free pass while honest people have to undergo what is a long & difficult process. If the illegals have come to the USA & have been a burden then yes kick them out. However if they have been a contributing member of society make them go through the process properly & fine the bejesus out of them for coming here illegally, but give them the chance to be a US citizen. Unless you are an American indian your ancestors came here as immigrants too, so don't forget that.

And my ancestors came here in compliance with the laws that were in effect at the time. And remember that most on this board have a significant other that came here obeying the laws that are currently in place. Now people who flagerantly and openly violate our laws should be able to become citizens, and remain here while doing so while thousands of people who are doing it legally wait and deal with lengthy separations and endless red tape bs while waiting? Sorry, not in my book.

You are preaching to the choir... we endured the K1 process & had some very disheartening setbacks along the way. I think you & I are in partial agreement on this matter & we just have to agree to disagree on the other part.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You are preaching to the choir... we endured the K1 process & had some very disheartening setbacks along the way. I think you & I are in partial agreement on this matter & we just have to agree to disagree on the other part.

Understood. If you had to get a waiver from the Phillipines, it would be next to impossible, but our gov. would give amnesty to the same person if they entered illegally? It isn't right, IMHO.